Hi Alex

This is something that has been irritating me for ages but I've never quite got round to mentioning it for some reason.

How about allowing us to specify a seperate folder for (i.e. path to) library files, rather than as now forcing us to use the game folder or the folder that Quest.exe is in?

This would make development using 'general purpose' libraries like my 'typelib' a lot tidier to maintain. I'd suggest that the ideal situation is that when compiling or running, the local folder (one the ASL source is in) is checked first, then the new 'common library' folder and possibly finally the folder holding the run time/compiler exe's.

This would mean that to 'override' a common library all you'd need to do is copy the original library to the folder that contains the source code that needs the altered code and amend it there, thus keeping any modified library code with the source that needs it. This also leaves the original lib unaltered and intact in a constant place - a 'Good Thing' I reckon.

Were this available, it would make 'modularising' libraries (as is done with the ALAN system) a sensible option and this ought to make extending/modifying them a lot less of a chore.

Just a thought

Al

Good suggestion - but why not just have the common libary in the Quest directory? That way you can still override a library by having it in the game path, since that is what's checked first.

Alex wrote

Good suggestion - but why not just have the common libary in the Quest directory? That way you can still override a library by having it in the game path, since that is what's checked first.

That's what I do now - I would just prefer to keep the static library code in a seperate folder from both the executables and unrelated source code and as Quest works currently - I can't do that.

In truth I probably only find this irksome because I'm used to being able to specify include paths to a compiler.

Al (MaDbRiT)